The solution to all our Tax problems??

[AzDesertRat]

The only problem with the last statement is that if revenues exceed expenditures is that government will find a way to start a new program and spend it instead of cutting spending and taxes responsibly. Some people prefer oak barrels, but politicians love the ones made of pork.

Ted Stevens, where does that bridge go again?

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
(I happen to disagree with a National Sales tax, on other grounds, as it IS regressive and leaves income untaxed, in favor of taxing spending.)

[/ QUOTE ]

what would you propose?

I prefer no tax but in the meantime this plan will work.


Have you actually read the bill or analisis of it or is this your knee jerk reaction? Great steps are taken to help low income familes rather than buttsecksing them like we do now.

the idea of regressive or progressive taxation is based in income redistribution so the concept itself is bull [censored]

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, I don't like the idea of prebates based on income because that still requires an intrusive federal bureaucracy tracking the income of every individual. This is a negative not to be underestimated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course.But the fair tax bill as written does not call for this.

from the bill:

[ QUOTE ]
Each qualified family shall be eligible to receive a sales tax rebate each month. The sales tax rebate shall be in an amount equal to the product of--

`(1) the rate of tax imposed by section 101, and

`(2) the monthly poverty level.

`(a) General Rule- For purposes of this chapter, the term `qualified family' shall mean 1 or more family members sharing a common residence. All family members sharing a common residence shall be considered as part of 1 qualified family.



[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Much better (I would guess) would be to simply exempt some basic things from the FairTax in the first place, things such as: non-prepared food, rent, medical/dental care, toiletry/grooming items, basic clothing, gasoline/fuel, and automotive parts and repairs. That would be simpler to implement (once categories were determined), less intrusive, less empowering of Big Brother, and less susceptible to fraud.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree and this is included in the proposal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the further clarifications.

afterthought: it does seem to me that the homeless might get screwed if it is based upon certain residence criteria.

[IsaacW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, IMO the "Fair Tax" is a regressive tax that will favor the rich and further imprison the 50 inch HDTV renting trailer park residents of this country, and therefore I think it SUCKS. Paying taxes on what you spend is all well and good, and seems like a flat tax, which in itself is harder on the poor/little guy, as they have less left after taxes. But tell me someone who makes $20MM a year is going to spend $20MM and pay taxes on everything. What about someone who makes $20K?? Yes they will spend it all, so their tax is 23% and the rich guys is 23% of what he spends, plus the 2-3% that is levied on income greater than X? What a joke. Don't support this tax until you read it and see if it agrees with your overall sensibilities, not just your own self-interest at the poker tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

The joke is that you totally misrepresent the facts. the poor pay less under the fair tax not more. Monthly rebates are sent according to income.

from the Fair Tax FAQ

"Under the FairTax plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a tax of only 11.5 percent a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow, thus harming low-income people the most."


here is a comparative chart of the two effective rates.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the information, and hopefully that will help clear up some misconceptions.

On a side note, I don't like the idea of prebates based on income because that still requires an intrusive federal bureaucracy tracking the income of every individual. This is a negative not to be underestimated. For one thing, I'd imagine you could get audited just the same as today under such a system and the burden of proof would still be on you. There would probably be people scamming to get larger prebates than they were entitled to, also. Much better (I would guess) would be to simply exempt some basic things from the FairTax in the first place, things such as: non-prepared food, rent, medical/dental care, toiletry/grooming items, basic clothing, gasoline/fuel, and automotive parts and repairs. That would be simpler to implement (once categories were determined), less intrusive, less empowering of Big Brother, and less susceptible to fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]
The prebates in the FairTax system are not based on income. Every household would get a monthly deposit based on the tax that would be paid on 1/12th the "poverty level of consumption" for the size of the household. The way the negative tax rate works out are if you consume less than the poverty level. If you consume exactly at the poverty level your tax is 0%, and if you consume above the poverty level your tax is some positive percentage that asymptotically approaches the full FairTax rate.

Prebating everyone up to the poverty level of consumption makes the bureaucracy required more akin to a census than the income tracking that is done now. Of course, some people will claim a larger household (fake dependents FTW) to get a bigger prebate, but that's not much different than the current situation with income exemptions based on dependents.

EDIT: MY FAIRPONY TOO SLOW.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, IMO the "Fair Tax" is a regressive tax that will favor the rich and further imprison the 50 inch HDTV renting trailer park residents of this country, and therefore I think it SUCKS. Paying taxes on what you spend is all well and good, and seems like a flat tax, which in itself is harder on the poor/little guy, as they have less left after taxes. But tell me someone who makes $20MM a year is going to spend $20MM and pay taxes on everything. What about someone who makes $20K?? Yes they will spend it all, so their tax is 23% and the rich guys is 23% of what he spends, plus the 2-3% that is levied on income greater than X? What a joke. Don't support this tax until you read it and see if it agrees with your overall sensibilities, not just your own self-interest at the poker tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

The joke is that you totally misrepresent the facts. the poor pay less under the fair tax not more. Monthly rebates are sent according to income.

from the Fair Tax FAQ

"Under the FairTax plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a tax of only 11.5 percent a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow, thus harming low-income people the most."


here is a comparative chart of the two effective rates.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the information, and hopefully that will help clear up some misconceptions.

On a side note, I don't like the idea of prebates based on income because that still requires an intrusive federal bureaucracy tracking the income of every individual. This is a negative not to be underestimated. For one thing, I'd imagine you could get audited just the same as today under such a system and the burden of proof would still be on you. There would probably be people scamming to get larger prebates than they were entitled to, also. Much better (I would guess) would be to simply exempt some basic things from the FairTax in the first place, things such as: non-prepared food, rent, medical/dental care, toiletry/grooming items, basic clothing, gasoline/fuel, and automotive parts and repairs. That would be simpler to implement (once categories were determined), less intrusive, less empowering of Big Brother, and less susceptible to fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]
The prebates in the FairTax system are not based on income. Every household would get a monthly deposit based on the tax that would be paid on 1/12th the "poverty level of consumption" for the size of the household. The way the negative tax rate works out are if you consume less than the poverty level. If you consume exactly at the poverty level your tax is 0%, and if you consume above the poverty level your tax is some positive percentage that asymptotically approaches the full FairTax rate.

Prebating everyone up to the poverty level of consumption makes the bureaucracy required more akin to a census than the income tracking that is done now. Of course, some people will claim a larger household (fake dependents FTW) to get a bigger prebate, but that's not much different than the current situation with income exemptions based on dependents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the additional explanation. The census analogy makes some sense.

[NeBlis]

what Isaac said explains it much better sorry if i was unclear.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
afterthought: it does seem to me that the homeless might get screwed if it is based upon certain residence criteria.


[/ QUOTE ]

My first thought is ... yeah so what?

but in reality they end up better off. Homeless families and people genuinely trying to recover will have an address of a shelter etc. And staples like milk bread etc are not taxed.

incorrigible street drunks will probably not get full benefit but i really dont care. If they cant help themselves I'm not going to worry about it.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The only problem with the last statement is that if revenues exceed expenditures is that government will find a way to start a new program and spend it instead of cutting spending and taxes responsibly. Some people prefer oak barrels, but politicians love the ones made of pork.

Ted Stevens, where does that bridge go again?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree totally and that the desire to "fill the void" seems to be at least somewhat thwarted by gridlock. I'm all for cutting spending and there's no doubt in my mind that is ample opportunity for the federal government to do so.

[jogger08152]

Regressive taxes are a drag. Very nice if you're very rich, very unpleasant if you're living on a fixed income, ala most middle class senior citizens.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, IMO the "Fair Tax" is a regressive tax that will favor the rich and further imprison the 50 inch HDTV renting trailer park residents of this country, and therefore I think it SUCKS. Paying taxes on what you spend is all well and good, and seems like a flat tax, which in itself is harder on the poor/little guy, as they have less left after taxes. But tell me someone who makes $20MM a year is going to spend $20MM and pay taxes on everything. What about someone who makes $20K?? Yes they will spend it all, so their tax is 23% and the rich guys is 23% of what he spends, plus the 2-3% that is levied on income greater than X? What a joke. Don't support this tax until you read it and see if it agrees with your overall sensibilities, not just your own self-interest at the poker tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

The joke is that you totally misrepresent the facts. the poor pay less under the fair tax not more. Monthly rebates are sent according to income.

from the Fair Tax FAQ

"Under the FairTax plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a tax of only 11.5 percent a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow, thus harming low-income people the most."


here is a comparative chart of the two effective rates.


[/ QUOTE ]
My favorite part of this post is the print at the bottom of the graph that says "annual income=annual expenditures". DUCY?